Allowed

Samskruti College of Pharmacy v. the State of Telangana and 4 Others

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/36319/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of a writ petition seeking electricity connections. The court granted a direction to the authorities to process the application without insisting on a No Objection Certificate from the Tahasildar, dismissing the demand as unsustainable despite pending related proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 2 to 5 to process the application for three agricultural and one domestic service connection without insisting for production of NOC from respondent 6.

Samskruti College of Pharmacy Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE ;;" :,irriliiiJ.[f ::]A N G A N A

¶2

FR I DA y, rH E rwE Nry FDo u Rripthrf E MB E R s_?

¶3

rHE HoNouRo..= 5l,..i,fJrlcE r.vrNoD KUMAR

¶4

Between:

¶5

W RITP E roN NO: 355730F 2021

¶6

X,1'?iltlil?,IT:i;llE!giL[?3:^?&,i1,",#lil?"ilVla"Efl

¶7

"Bn,il""xl,.?,,,#,:i":

¶8

AND ...PETITIoNER

¶9

The Telangana Stal

¶10

,ii',";glhy,f ,,if$E{f $":;d,,:rfl #lr,Hs"*,TIl,lJJI,ffi^,",

¶11

r. rne urvisional Executrve Engineer. (Operations. ,^{YadadriBhuvanajii,} ursrncr. )'^TSSPDCL, Bhuvanagiri, E ns ineer ( operations ), rsspDCL, N/othkur,

¶12

: i!:*?i8ri[',?:[:liB?],:X;"te En{lneer loperations;. TSS'DCL. rr,4orhkur, yadadri Bhuvanasiri

¶13

: iffirtit'.*nt 6 The Tahsirdar, IVothkur, IVothkur Mandar, yadadri Bhuvanagiri District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articre 2-26 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired th;;ith,"the High court may be preased to issue a writ, order or orders, Dire;fi;"'";;i;;;iions more particurarrv one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare *ru u.tion-oi the respondents z to 5 in not considering the applications made ov Le^-p"i,tioner seeking three agricultural connections and one domestic..connection in ."rpu"1 0r the rands of Ac.1 o.2g Gts in sy No'3.1 3 of .Kordagadapa Viilage, Mothkur M;;;;i of yadadri Bhuvanagiri District for want of Noc from the Tahsirdar, Mothkur rraanoar, as arortiary, unr"easJnanre and illegar and to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to consider and pass orouo on tn" application of the petitioner dr.1 5.1 1 .2021 seeking three agricurturat conn#ions and one domestic connection in respect of the ranis or ec, r-o.zg ot, i" sv.N".gr s of Kondagadapa Village, Mothkur Mandal of yadadri Bhuvanagiri-District, witnout insisting for the NOC from the Tahsildar, lVlothkur IVandal

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to consider and pass orders on tire application of the petitioner d1.15.11.2021 seeking three agricultural connections and one domestic connection in respect of the lands of Ac.i0.28 Gts in Sy.No.313 of Kondagadapa Village, I,4othkur lt/andal of Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, without insisting for the NOC from the Tahsildar, Ir/othkur Ir,4andal, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : SRI R.VINOD REDDY

¶20

S.C. FOR TSSPDCL

¶21

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6 : GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE^{HO {,BLESRI JUSTICET'VINOD KUMAR} WI IT TION^N o.3 5573 of 2021

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

HeardSri:dulaSriniva.s,learnedSeniorCounseiappearrng for the^{counselfc I petitioner' Sri R'Vinod Reddy'learned Standing} Counsel^{appear ng for respondent Nos'1 to 5'andiearned} Government^{PIe rder for Revenue appearing for 6m respondent'} withtheircons(ot,theWritPetitionisdisposedofatthestageof admission^itself'

¶26

Petitioner^{contends that it had appliedto 3rd respondent} seeking^threee 3ricultural^{service connectionsand one domestic} serviceconnecioninrespectoflandadmeasuringAcs'10.28 guntas in Sy.l^{o.313of Kondagadapa Village'MothkurMandal'} Yadadri Bhuva^{nagiri District and in order to release the said} connections,^{tl e respondents-authorities are insisting to obtain} and furnish^N )C^{from the 6fr respondent,which is contended} contrary to the^{provisionsof the Electricity Act, 2O03'}

¶27

Petitione further contends^{that when the petitionerhad} approached tt e 66 respondent^{for issuance of NOC, the 6fr} respondent by croceedings^{dt. 18.12'2021 rejectedto issue NOC on} the ground the : a Writ Petition No.2^{1 107 of 2O2l is pending before} this Court in r:spect of the land of an extent^{of Acs.10.28guntas} in Sy.No.313 rnd that the said land is not shown in^Dharani Portal.

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the^petitioner contends that he said writ petition, WP.No.21lO7 ol 2O2l is filed against the orr er of the Special Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the petitioner and same was disposed of by this Court on

¶29

22.09.2021 setting aside rhe order of the I Tribunar and remanding the matter back to the Joint Ilector, and now the appeal is pending before the Joint Collector."o=oaaru, Initially, when rhe appeai was fired before ,u. ,--_ :".'l"tt.. tnt Joint collector, petitioner arso filed application seeking """ of the order of the RDo' against which said appear *"" o."artt' :red, but the said application was dismissed. Against the same, CRp.No. 1729 of 20i9 is filed before this Court and this Court granted interim stay on 2S.OZ.2Olgin iA.No.l of 2019 in CRp and the same is in force. He further contends that the insistence of respondents 2 to S to obtain NOC from 6ft respondent for providing electricity connections as sought by the petitioner, cannot be held to be valid and cannot be sustained.

¶30

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents on the other hand submits that in view of the pendency of the proceedings before this Court and in view of the proceedings issued by the 6th respondent-authorities, respondents 2 to 5 sought for production of NOC from 6tr, respondent and the authorities therefore could not provide electricity connections as sought by the petitioner.

¶31

However, iearned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the interim stay granted by this court on 2s.o7.2or9 in IA.No.1 of 2O2t in CRp.No.1729 of 2OL9.

¶32

7' In view of the above, this court is of the view that mere pendency of the proceedings before this Court should not preclude the respondents-authorities from considering the application of the petitioner for providing electricity service connections as sought by him, if the application is otherwise in order.

¶33

B. Therefore, the respondents 2 to 5 are directed to process the application of the petitioner for releasing three agricultural service

":::'

--4-='-* I

::3::

connections^{an( one domestic service connection'in respect of} land admeasurir.g^{Acs'10'28 guntas in Sy'No'313of Kondagadapa} Vi11age, Mothku:^{Mandal, Yadadri BhuvanagiriDistrict'without} insisting^{for pro luction of NOC from 6e respondent'However'it is} made clear^{tha - petitioner cannot claim equitieson accountof} provision of^{t lectricity connectionsby the respondentsin} pursuance of^{tL is order.}

¶39

9 Subject t^r the^{above directions,this Writ Petition is disposed} of. No order a^{to costs.}

¶40

Consequ :ntly, misceilaneous^{petitions pending,if any, shal1}

¶41

stand closed.

¶42

,ITRUE^COPY'/

¶43

Sd/.8 ASSISTAN,'AIXi.'+'H db

¶44

SECTION^OFFICER

¶45

¶46

1wffiffi',li ": : - :: "'

¶47

l^{qlffi :'n**tlu:n*l:**t"'rt:'':";:}

Kj. ?)-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411212)21

ORDER

$E sla 16-
bs
q
I
o()) 2 4 DEC 2C71
,)'

¶53

WP.No.35573 r>12021

¶54

DISPOSING OI THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS. ^,/-

Samskruti College of Pharmacy v. the State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samskruti College of Pharmacy v. the State of Telangana and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pingle Ranadhir Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Dr.Krishna Reddy Pingle Vs The State of Telangana, And 2 Others

Khaja Sohel Thabassum Vs State of Telangana

Jogiparthi Mukkanteswara Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Veera Dharma Reddy Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Shaik Athar Vs Khaja Miyan and 6 Others